genez said:
There is no scientific evidence that there has been more than one creation. That is why I find OEC no better than YEC.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
genez said:Here I have been, showing you that there is an answer as to why the earth is very old, yet this present creation is relatively new.
GodSaves said:[/size][/font]
Have any of you theistic evolutionists seen the evidence and have accurately tested it?
Do any of you theistic evolutionists know the minds, of the scientists who brought forth the evidence and of those who interpreted the evidence, to be unbias and not looking to prove that God does not exists?
. You are trusting the scientists to be correct. And the scientists are men, and men are fallible. And most of these men are atheists.
pthalomarie said:You've just contradicted yourself. If a biologist lacks the ability to explain why species are different, then it's even more complex than I made it out to be.
As I said to Andy, if you can't discuss creationism without talking about God or the Bible, then you can't claim that creationism is science.
Try to explain all of the creationist tenets to people without citing one lick of scripture. Try doing it without bringing up God. You can't. And that's because creationism is a religious belief.
However, slim odds are still possible. You may view evolution as increasing the odds that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible.
It doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. So you can't take the jump and claim that God is being called a liar.
If God created via evolution, then that's the way He created. If He created via creationism, then that's the way He created. But if He created via creationism, then why did He leave no evidence of it?
Alright, then. Let's say you want to show someone how Windows XP is different than Windows 98. How do we use God's Word to show the difference? Which passage of scripture teaches us that XP loads up quicker, and stores files differently?
But the point is that, with theistic evolution, there is no need to "retreat", because there is no claim made that Genesis is a textbook.
Where did I say that matter "formed itself"? Anyhow, you have to understand that evolution does not deal with how life came to be. It only deals with what happened, once life began.
Actually, is was C.I. Scofield who popularized the theory in 1909. There is legitimate evidence that this theory was embraced largely because of anxiety over Darwin, and because the modern YEC movement had yet to be formed.
This is an unfounded assumption. Basically, the author's assumption is that any theory that had been around a long time and espoused by Christians must be legit. Well, for ages Christians believed in alchemy, bloodletting, and the racial inferiority of blacks.
Erroneous creation theories are even more excusable, since it took so many centuries for our knowledge to get to the point where we could even begin to understand biology.
Actually I dont believe they are liars....I believe that if the creation theory is correct then they are just being misledNull-Geodesic said:Well I'm right and you're wrong, it's that simple. The conspiracy theory is the refuge of the ignorant and the uneducated. You must believe that hundreds of thousands of your fellow Chrisitans are liars in one way or another or (and lets face it much more likely) you are wrong.
Explain this to the thousands of Christians who die for their faith each day. They are living by emotions? No, I believe they are living by faith. Knowing that our home is in heaven and if I am faced with die or renounce my faith, I will die. This cannot even be compared to suicide bombers and it is shameful to Christians who die each day that you even consider this. I happen to read a lot of these articles about Christians dying for Christ and I feel for them but I am not stupid, I will die for Christ IF I am called to. You just didnt want to hear the context this was written in so u made one up.genez said:Being a fool for Christ, and being really foolish, are not the same things.
Muslims do the same for Allah. Is Allah the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The flesh can be quite devout. Means nothing unless God's Spirit is enabling. Suicide Muslims who die for Allah do not have the Holy Spirit. I am not impressed by your claim. It only shows you are living by your emotions. No one wants to die for Christ, unless he requires it of us. If he does, then he supplies the needed grace to fulfill. If he does not, we should want to live for Christ. Peter got like you. So there's hope.But, not impressed in the least. Your mind set is right now blinded by your emotions.
Matthew 26:34 -35 niv
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same."
Right, Peter! Right! Peter disowned Jesus three times. Peter's well intentioned emotions were not well pleasing to God. We are what we think, to God. Not what we feel. Feelings are only the icing on the cake when our thinking is correct.
I start my verification with the Bible and no, not YEC's (they may be YEC's) but rather Christians who have studied the Word and also my own studying as well.genez said:Hello? New belief? I gave you a page that showed you that many Bible Scholars saw this factor in Genesis, long before Darwin was ever born. I give up. You refuse to read it? Really read it?
Who did you verify with? Fellow YEC's? That reminds me of my mother. I used to witness to her about Jesus from the Old Testament. She would then tell me that she would check it out with her rabbi. Lot's of good that did her. She refused to think for herself.
This is where you say, I am mislead and wrong. I am not looking to God for answers or truth but rather to my own agenda. This is where I know you are wrong in stating this because I, and only God and I, know that I am being honest in stating that I am being led by God and I accept I am wrong on some things but I have not felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God didnt create the world in 6 literal days.genez said:Fine. God is working in each one of us, in different ways. This is an area he needs to expose to you about yourself. You are wrong.
Do you have to question everything that God has inspired in His word? I cant argue on a scientific level on these issues and state, maybe the water was fresh water...who knows...it is another theory...we have enough theories already...I just believe the truth..what I know to be true..or believe to be true. I believe in gravity because I can feel the effects of it and you can call it something other than gravity and say it works in a totally different way to how it has already been explained...yet it still has the same effects on me today.genez said:If that were the case, we would have no sea life as we know it. If there was a universal flood in Noah's day, that would mean that fresh water and salt water would have combined, killing off much of the sea life as we know it. In Noah's day, God was not out to destroy all animal life. He was only out to destroy man. Man at that time was living in an area most likley no larger than a large county. Man was in his infancy at that time. If God had to put all the species of land animals from all over the world on a ship, he would have needed to have Noah build a huge fleet of ships. You have any idea how many different species of land animals there are in the world? They would not all fit on a the Ark. But, that is another thread, I suppose.
Notice when you read that page I offered you, that ancient Jewish scholars (who were born again believers before the Church age) saw in the Hebrew Scriptures that God's Word revealed to them multiple creations in the past. If they only had the fossil records they would have better understood what they had discovered in God's Word. They did not know about prehistoric life like we do today. They were simply reporting what they were finding in the text. It might have even confused them a bit. It shows you that their interpretation was not motivated by bias or an agenda they wished to defend. Darwin was thousands of years from yet being born. Yet, they saw that the scriptures reveal other creations had been in the past. Are you getting this?
Grace in peace, GeneZ
Keep this in mind when you suggest that theistic evolutionists and other scientists are lying and trying to prove that God does not exist. You cannot know and I for one know that your are wrong when it comes to my beliefs. I personally have never felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God DID create the world in 6 literal days and as someone who pursues scientific investigation as the study of Gods creation, it is Gods handiwork that directly leads me to believe otherwise.Andy D said:This is where you say, I am mislead and wrong. I am not looking to God for answers or truth but rather to my own agenda. This is where I know you are wrong in stating this because I, and only God and I, know that I am being honest in stating that I am being led by God and I accept I am wrong on some things but I have not felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God didnt create the world in 6 literal days.
No I never said without creationism hell makes no sense. If you read what I wrote correctly then you might realise I am saying that if they can live their life believing there is no God then hell makes no sense. If they stumble across a reason so strong to prove there is a God in their mind and dont completely try to block out the possibility then they are in trouble when they in fact find out that this world proves an intelligent designer and that life could never have existed without God in fact existing...or else they have to put it down to aliens...as many people seem to believe these days lol.pthalomarie said:Are you saying that, without creationism, hell makes no sense?
I don't know about you, but I've never needed to debate dinosaurs or the age of the earth in order for people to understand what damnation is.
I understand your point and I dont believe we can ever look at the creation account purely scientifically because we are not God and therefore will never understand all the ways of God...His ways are not our ways. He thinks on a much higher level to us...as He is all knowledgeable and powerful. He is God. So yeah...the Bible is pretty useless as a scientific textbook as it just tells the creation account..it doesnt explain how, other than that God created in 6 days.pthalomarie said:But for its own credibility, creationism needs objective supporters. Religion, by definition, is not objective. Think of it this way: the folks who claim to have been abducted by aliens don't need more folks to come forward with similiar stories. They need objective bystanders who weren't actually abducted to photograph the spaceship or capture the alien. Creationism cannot be taken seriously if the requirement for believing in it is a religious conversion. If it cannot be addressed on purely scientific level, then it is useless to use it as science.
Actually it is more that I believe creationism is what the Bible says and it goes down to a study of how the Bible is to be interpreted as a Christian. That would be more important as a Christian I believe. I cant talk about creationism without talking about God and the Bible because the whole creationism concept comes from the Bible.pthalomarie said:But what good is understanding the spiritual world when you're trying to learn how birds can fly? You're right that science deals with this world and not the spiritual one; that's why desiring to introduce God into scientific research makes no sense.
So if you really believe that science and spirituality are seperate realms of study, then why can't you talk about creationism - which, according to you, is scientific fact - without talking about God and the Bible?
Still I am trying to work out who that first man was? The Bible says it was Adam...pretty clear to me. What I am trying to say is that at what stage did the ape evolving into a man, actually be called a man..what about the apes that were 99.99999% man and rest ape? If evolution takes billions of years, it isnt fair on the apes previous to the first man to not have a soul...ok, God is God so who can question Him, but He is also just. If we say that ape that was nearly a man but not quite, but obviously slightly intelligent, cannot have a soul and live forever because they were not in the image of God, then that is a bit harsh considering we didnt sin until the first man apparently...or when did the first sin happen? If that ape did have a soul, did the evolutionary species before that have souls? Will there be lots of single cell organisms living in heaven that were not quite the image of God, but evolved to be it over the years so they can come too. You can see my point, unless you can find a theory that fits, then another gap in TE theory. The Bible is so clear on it...Adam and Eve, they sinned...if this is just allogorical...what confusion...Yes, I understand we dont understand the Trinity very well, or predestination or the end times...but they are concepts we just accept in the Bible. They can cause some confusion, yes. These are not explained as clearly as the account of creation and man and sin in Genesis 1-3 though. This seems very clear as though God desired us to know our origin and our beginnings, that He created us and breathed life into us and each one of us since creation. He gave us our souls and allowed us to be in existence and for that we praise God.pthalomarie said:The first man had to have a soul. And since he was a man, he was in the image of God. That's not that complicated.
Except I can feel the existence of gravity and I dont have to believe some theory that it evolved or that it is in fact not gravity but something else...it doesnt change that i am held to the ground and that objects fall because of objects having gravitational pull. When you study astronomy you would notice how amazingly balanced the universe is, down to the last planet..the gravitational pull, etc that makes everything work so well. God knows where every spec of space dust is even. He is truly a God who understands mathematics on a MUCH higher level then we could ever explain.pthalomarie said:But gravity has never been proven to exist. No one has ever seen gravity. We see the results of what we think is gravity, but there is no way to prove that our assumptions about it are true. What we have are a history of experiments which have led to commonly agreed-upon theory. But if you're going to contend that the theory of evolution was created by man, then you would have to say that the theory of gravity is also man made. And, in order to be consistent, you would have to refuse to believe in gravity.
And you can be 100% certain of this? Cause I never saw every bit of evidence refuted. (Not that it is a case of importance anyhow but it is the same as creationists refuting evidence that evolutionists come up with). It goes both ways...so best to start with the Bible and then we can look at science if we like.pthalomarie said:Every claim of evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted has either been refuted, or shown to be an outright hoax.
But the evidence for evolution gets refuted firstly on a Biblical level by many and then a lot of the evidence is refuted on a science level and medical level and yet the voice of the scientists, (who believe in evolution) believers or non-believers all over the world is always a little louder.pthalomarie said:In science, evidence is a requirement for any theory to be accepted. You can't say that the moon is made of cheese and just expect people to believe you. You can't complain when people ask for evidence. When you propose a claim that is outside of current scientific understanding, you're obligated to provide evidence. If you have none, then there is no reason to believe you.
I wasnt asking for you to believe that scientists have willing toiled with the evidence...Satan is not stupid, he is more deceptive and more cunning than any other. I dont believe most people even realise they are tools in the hand of satan.pthalomarie said:Yet somehow, you want us to believe that scientists have willingly toiled in anonymity and secrecy, with not a single one of them in over a century willing to step forward and shine a light on this sinister cartel of scheming atheists.
Whilst I state that I cannot argue on this because none of us truly know, I have heard accounts of scientists who have become Christians from studying the facts. I didnt questions if these were true accounts or just bias...(in other words, Christians lying). It just means that until one actually posts in one of these forums, we will never know for sure will we?gluadys said:But it does show that it is not scientific evidence for creationism that led to their change of mind.
This is not a good comparison to evolution. If you understand evolution better than I do then I would think you can come up with a better argument then this. You are referring to laws of the universe and comparing them with evolution theory. Completely different.gluadys said:That's like saying there is a huge difference between an apple falling from its tree and a planet orbiting the sun. But Newton showed they were both effects of the same cause.
Maybe the huge difference you see is more in your imagination than in reality.
Easy? So where do you know this from? Who told you God made it so? I find the account in the Bible of Adam and Eve and God creating them, etc. I would like to know who told the TE's that God made it so? My point here is, that I am trying to use the Bible as much as possible to back up what I believe as I beleive it is the authority as it was inspired by God.gluadys said:That's easy. When God made it so.
Yes I realise what I am saying. I dont believe it would be hard to have a conspiracy to quieten truth. Satan is on the side of those trying to quieten truth. He doesnt want us out there preaching the Gospel or spreading any truth that might lead people to God.gluadys said:Do you realize what you are saying? That would involve an ongoing conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people who have no obvious reason to co-operate together (in that many of them are of different nationalities, religions, political persuasions, etc.) I don't know why creationists are so quick to talk about the astronomical odds against beneficial mutations, but seem to avoid the astronomical odds of such a conspiracy. Do you know how famous (and likely very rich) a scientist who discovered that humans and dinosaurs co-existed would be? What could a conspiracy to cover up the evidence offer that would be more attractive?
So how come there are many scientists who believe in God and still say evolution is true? Kenneth Millar is not trying to disprove God. Neither is Bob Bakker (and ask him about dinosaurs---he's a world expert on them).
I do agree and I prefer not to have to come to I am right and you are wrong statements...I simply answer the ones given to me.notto said:Keep this in mind when you suggest that theistic evolutionists and other scientists are lying and trying to prove that God does not exist. You cannot know and I for one know that your are wrong when it comes to my beliefs. I personally have never felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God DID create the world in 6 literal days and as someone who pursues scientific investigation as the study of Gods creation, it is Gods handiwork that directly leads me to believe otherwise.
Accusations of who is a Christian and who is misled or lying can be applied by either side so they don't really provide anthing of value.
That is why we must look at the evidence and how it is analyzed. This evidence is analyzed by scientists who are Christians, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc and they overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. The world is old and the flood never happened. Unless it can be shown that they are all deceived (by providing a valid alternative scientific theory backed by evidence), mainstream science will chug along as it always has and continue to verify the evidence or discard it. This practice is valid and although it may have a few flaws, it has proven to be the best we can do and has worked well in the past.
And again, I preferred not to have to go into this but it appears the arguments against creationism are geared this way.notto said:I see we have gotten the point of the discussion where it is claimed that scientists are the tool of satan. So much for intellectual honesty from here on out.
genez said:Not saying that. If Science contradicts God's Word, then the theory can not be correct.
But, it reveals the company you keep. Like it, or not. It does.
Why do some see what you can't? Is it a blindness gene?
God created the cow. He created the horse. Does that mean that the DNA has to be radically different between one and the other before we can know they were created separately, and not evolved?
Who set that rule up?
Take two paintings by Picasso. If an art expert can see that the strokes are the same unique technique, and the composition of the paint used, the same. Does that mean that Picasso painted one very long painting, and cut it up into different paintings? One evolving out from another?
Or, each contain the same elements, but arranged differently. Each being a separate creation in its own right? God is the creative artist here. You fail to see that.
And, why are you so fast to reject the GAP theory?
To a large degree, I agree with you. My point has been that the Bible makes no attempt to espouse the technical aspects of creation, so it makes sense that it would fall short of details on that issue.GodSaves said:Try and discuss evolution with only the Bible and you cannot because it is a scientific belief.
You've got it half right. If Genesis is to be read allegorically, then by definition it can be neither right nor wrong on the question of how the universe was created.Creationism is a belief that God did what He said He did in Genesis. Theistic evolution is the belief that God is the creator but Genesis is incorrect in how the universe was created, thus theistic evolutionists say it must be read allegorically.
Again, this is only partially true. If the theistic evolution existed solely as a reactionary explanation to reconcle evolution, then yes, it would look a bit less credible. But theistic evolution has on its side the fact that Genesis was originally understood in an allegorical fashion. It is a return to a correct understanding of Genesis, rather than a manmade misinterpretation that had developed over centuries of cultural displacement.Theistic evolutionists claim Genesis must be read allegorically because Genesis accounts of creation do not agree with scientists accounts of creation.
Again, you're only partially correct. Certainly every generation carries with it bad science, and every generation includes scientists who use their knowledge for sinful reasons. But the database of scientific knowledge is always self-correcting; we are always tweaking and shifting our knowledge about the world based on new evidence.Furthermore theistic evolutionists believe that scientists have accurately interpreted evidence without bias of any sort, and that the evidence itself is absolutely correct and unbias.
Sure; any student who takes a science course eventually deals with evidence of evolution in some manner; at the higher levels, students learn to use testing methods themselves.Have any of you theistic evolutionists seen the evidence and have accurately tested it?
Every student who takes a college level science course has to learn how to write a hypotheses. Here's a good page that explains how this is done:Have any of you theistic evolutionists interpreted the evidence yourself without bias?
It does not matter whether a given scientist is religious; the whole point is that the evidence stands on its own. Now, some scientists may look at the evidence and conclude that God does not exist, but that's their emotional/spiritual reaction; that's not a statement that impacts the evidence itself. That's why I said that the age of the earth is just a number. There is no doubt that it is millions of years old; how one decides to reconcile that with their religious beliefs is a personal issue.Do any of you theistic evolutionists know the minds, of the scientists who brought forth the evidence and of those who interpreted the evidence, to be unbias and not looking to prove that God does not exists?
You trust those atheistic scientists as well. When they do reasearch that finds that something may cause cancer, you stay away from it. When they say that something may help prevent cancer, you probably will eat more of it. When you learned how to drive, a lot of the warnings about how dangerous speeding can be are based on physics studies done by atheistic scientists. But you have faith that those warnings are based on fact.Faith means trust. You are trusting the scientists to be correct. And the scientists are men, and men are fallible. And most of these men are atheists.
There is no doubt that the ten commandments were a very real part of history. Some theistic evolutionists may believe that the story has elements of allegory to it, but Exodus was not written in the same way as Genesis was. I think the most balanced answer is that there is no doubt among theistic evolutionists that the ten commandments as a divine message from God really happened. Some, like myself, believe the tablets existed. Others may not.Do theistic evolutionists believe the ten commandments are literal commandments, or should they be taken allegorically? Can you explain why they should be taken literally or allegorically?
The point is simply that, once you realize that scripture does not attempt to answer every topic in the world, you stop trying to make it answer questions that it doesn't attempt to address.Why is that most all of the theistic evolutionists use this argument? Where in the Bible does it talk about computers, electronics, electric? Nowhere.
Well, for one, the sentence structure is not the same. The Gospels are written as factual; Genesis is poetic in intent. For two, just because Matthew was written in Hebrew, that does not resolve the issue, since our earliest copies of Matthew are in Greek. So, whatever structural intent there was will be altered in the translation.But when the same sentence structure is used in Matthew about Jesus walking on the water or raising from the dead theistic evolutionists swap to a literal reading. This is very inconsistant theology.
This is a strawman. At no point has anyone here said, "you believe what you want and I will believe what I want." Instead of looking for opportunities to go on off-topic rants, why not stick to what folks here have actually stated?Then you tell others, you believe what you want and I will believe what I want. Sounds a bit like tolerance to me, wonder what Jesus thinks of tolerance.
Andy D said:Still I am trying to work out who that first man was? The Bible says it was Adam...pretty clear to me. What I am trying to say is that at what stage did the ape evolving into a man, actually be called a man..what about the apes that were 99.99999% man and rest ape? If evolution takes billions of years, it isnt fair on the apes previous to the first man to not have a soul...ok, God is God so who can question Him, but He is also just. If we say that ape that was nearly a man but not quite, but obviously slightly intelligent, cannot have a soul and live forever because they were not in the image of God, then that is a bit harsh considering we didnt sin until the first man apparently...or when did the first sin happen? If that ape did have a soul, did the evolutionary species before that have souls? Will there be lots of single cell organisms living in heaven that were not quite the image of God, but evolved to be it over the years so they can come too. You can see my point, unless you can find a theory that fits, then another gap in TE theory. The Bible is so clear on it...Adam and Eve, they sinned...if this is just allogorical...what confusion...Yes, I understand we dont understand the Trinity very well, or predestination or the end times...but they are concepts we just accept in the Bible. They can cause some confusion, yes. These are not explained as clearly as the account of creation and man and sin in Genesis 1-3 though. This seems very clear as though God desired us to know our origin and our beginnings, that He created us and breathed life into us and each one of us since creation. He gave us our souls and allowed us to be in existence and for that we praise God.
With evolution, I could never clearly explain the Bible, Genesis, where we came from, why we are here, that God made us in His image and loves us and that we are special, not just animals who evolved from lower life forms that weren't made in the image of God.
Andy D said:Whilst I state that I cannot argue on this because none of us truly know, I have heard accounts of scientists who have become Christians from studying the facts. I didnt questions if these were true accounts or just bias...(in other words, Christians lying). It just means that until one actually posts in one of these forums, we will never know for sure will we?
This is not a good comparison to evolution. If you understand evolution better than I do then I would think you can come up with a better argument then this. You are referring to laws of the universe and comparing them with evolution theory. Completely different.
Easy? So where do you know this from? Who told you God made it so?
Yes I realise what I am saying. I dont believe it would be hard to have a conspiracy to quieten truth. Satan is on the side of those trying to quieten truth. He doesnt want us out there preaching the Gospel or spreading any truth that might lead people to God.
Andy D said:Explain this to the thousands of Christians who die for their faith each day.
They are living by emotions? No, I believe they are living by faith.
Knowing that our home is in heaven and if I am faced with die or renounce my faith, I will die.
This cannot even be compared to suicide bombers and it is shameful to Christians who die each day that you even consider this.
I happen to read a lot of these articles about Christians dying for Christ and I feel for them but I am not stupid, I will die for Christ IF I am called to. You just didnt want to hear the context this was written in so u made one up.
I start my verification with the Bible and no, not YEC's (they may be YEC's) but rather Christians who have studied the Word and also my own studying as well.
This is where you say, I am mislead and wrong. I am not looking to God for answers or truth but rather to my own agenda.
This is where I know you are wrong in stating this because I, and only God and I, know that I am being honest in stating that I am being led by God and I accept I am wrong on some things but I have not felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God didnt create the world in 6 literal days.
Do you have to question everything that God has inspired in His word? I cant argue on a scientific level on these issues and state, maybe the water was fresh water...who knows...it is another theory...we have enough theories already...I just believe the truth..what I know to be true..or believe to be true.
I also dont think Noah had to take fully grown adults of all animals on the ark...baby ones would do. Many species since have been bred, such as dogs, etc...so dont count those..and dinosaurs could have easily been mostly killed off by then for food...who knows....do you? God knows. I just accept that the Bible states that it happened.
My apologies if you read what I said to be chauvinistic. I will try to make sure I put human instead of man so not to offend anyone.gluadys said:Me personally, no. I am not a scientist. But I know of theist evolutionists (including some who post to this board) that have done such testing.
Since by definition theistic evolutionists are theists---believers in God---why would they be looking to prove that God does not exist?
That is an impossible propostion to prove scientically anyway. Why would any scientist waste effort on an impossible project?
Actually a good many of them are women, and I hope to see the number of female scientists grow. Most are not atheists, though a great percentage are agnostic. However, private beliefs does not mean the science is wrong.
Yes men (and women too) are fallible. But you cannot apply a general statement to particulars without reason. To say that people (you see we CAN talk about humans without being chauvinistically patriarchal) are fallible is not the same thing as saying that everything they have produced is filled with errors. People do make accurate statements as well as mistaken statements.
Scientists are disciplined far more than most people to back up their claims with evidence. Unless we have a reason to question a specific conclusion, why should we assume it is an error? Do we not have to show cause why this conclusion is in error?
I cannot see it any other way unless you are prepared to say that every statement in every scientific work is erroneous.
gluadys said:There is no scientific evidence that there has been more than one creation. That is why I find OEC no better than YEC.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?